zlacker

> as will Altman himself

Would you trust someone who doesn't believe in responsible governance for themselves, to apply responsible governance elsewhere?

>>rcaugh+(OP)
I think the narrative that this was driven by safety concerns is pretty much bunk.

>>rcaugh+(OP)
If Altman will be 1 of 9, that means he has power but not an exceptional amount.

The real teams here seem to be:

"Team Board That Does Whatever Altman Wants"

"Team Board Provides Independent Oversight"

With this much money on the table, independent oversight is difficult, but at least they're making the effort.

The idea this was immediately about AI safety vs go-fast (or Microsoft vs non-Microsoft control) is bullshit -- this was about how strong board oversight of Altman should be in the future.

>>code_r+y
Hey, downvoters, read this first https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/31/quoras-poe-introduces-an-a...

>>rcaugh+(OP)
How has the board shown that they fired Sam Altman due to "responsible governance".

They haven't really said anything about why it was, and according to business insider[0] (the only reporting that I've seen that says anything concrete) the reasons given were:

> One explanation was that Altman was said to have given two people at OpenAI the same project.

> The other was that Altman was said to have given two board members different opinions about a member of personnel.

Firing the CEO of a company and only being able to articulate two (in my opinion) weak examples of why, and causing >95% of your employees to say they will quit unless you resign does not seem responsible.

If they can articulate reasons why it was necessary, sure, but we haven't seen that yet.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/openais-employees-given-expl...

>>ethbr1+L1
Is not Microsoft a decelerationist force? Copilot is still lingers on GPT3.5, and they need to figure out how to sell Office licenses to AGI.

>>mijoha+J6
Good lord: it’s a private company. As a general matter of course it’s inadvisable to comment on specifics of why someone is fired. The lack of a thing that pretty much never happens anyway (public comment) is just harmful to your soap opera, not to the potential legitimacy of the action.

>>ethanb+Pg
According to reports they haven't told executives and employees inside the company. (I'm not arguing that they should speak publicly, though given the position the board put itself in I think hiring PR people for external crisis comms is very much warranted)

When 95% of your staff threatens to resign and says "you have made a mistake", that's when it's time to say "no, the very good reasons we did it are this". That didn't happen.

>>ethanb+Pg
Its not a private company it is a non profit working in the public interest this usually requires some sort of public accountability. The board want to be a public good when they make decisions but want to be a private entity when those decisions are criticised by the public.

>>irthom+18
This seems like a silly way of understanding deceleration. By this comparison the USSR was decelerating the cold war because they were a couple years behind in developing the hydrogen bomb.

Microsoft can and will be using GPT4 as soon as they get a handle on it, and if it doesn't boil their servers to do so. If you want deceleration you would need someone with an incentive that didn't involve, for example, being first to market with new flashy products.

>>plorg+7L
Microsoft was using GPT-4 in production as part of Sydney's "Bing Chat", even before it was released to the public on ChatGPT.